"Should've done what four years ago?"

We watched the season 4 finale of Castle this week.  It was extremely well done television.

But it raised an interesting question.  Why keep going?  It was the end of the story.  Huge, satisfying, and resolved.  If we weren't watching from the queue I'd hope that it was the last episode, but I knew it wasn't and I became worried.

The engine had been changed.  What would it be like?



"A sequel?  Uh hunh."



I've watched two episodes of season 5 now and I can tell you exactly what it's like.  A sequel.  Not a spinoff -- no Trapper, MD or CSI Bismark here.  It is a sequel.  Same characters, different situation.

And like most sequels, it's not as good as the original.  Fun?  Sure.  But a lot more predictable and the subplots are all starting over from scratch.  And I don't like them.

Sort of like what happened to the Mentalist.  I didn't realize it then, but we were watching a sequel.  Life?  Same thing.  The main dramatic force behind the original story was resolved and the quality of part 2 was lacking – it was like watching a completely different show but with [mostly] the same characters and setting.

Can you think of any other shows that had a clear part 1 and part 2?  Are there any that actually got better?

"I'm your partner. That means I'm with you until the wheels fall off."

Must See TV again already?  Life sure is flying by.  Today will be short, I have a project I'm working on and am anxious to get back to it.  Hopefully this won't end up being mocked the same way my dog training project was - apparently I'm the only one who thinks it's a good idea to teach a border collie the command "Ottoman", no matter how cute he is curled up on mine.

 

We are big fans of streaming - on demand commercial free - but there are some shows you can't stream from Netflix, you have to order the DVDs.  It's a little less convenient but you generally get some extras that aren't available through the download.  Remember the bonus content when movies first came out on DVD?  Some TV shows still have that and they can be great fun.

Last night, after the regular episode, I called my dog to the ottoman and started a special feature called "Seamus and Jon" on disc 5, season 2 of that show I'm always going on and on about.

So what?  I'll tell you what.  Seamus and Jon watched "Seamus and Jon" on TV and it was fun.  That's what.

"We make our own destiny."

Plans change.  Sometimes very quickly.  You can cower, grump, or seize an exposed opportunity.  If you’re really talented, you can do all three.

I took #3 and #4 (the Boys) to see “The Sea of Monsters” last night and we had a good time.  Got home the same time as my wife.   More on the movie in a moment.

The original plan was not for the film.  We were going boating with a small campfire on the beach and a starlight cruise home.  Then life happened.

My wife was reminded of previous engagement and had to go out.  No boat.  I thought of the movie and how much #3 wanted to see it and though that would work.

Then there was the list – Take #1 and his friend to their all-night teen shindig, pick up dinner, #2 was at the stables riding.  Dinner was easiest but delayed getting home.  Time was slipping.  I checked showings and found out that it started 5 minutes after I was supposed to drop of #1.

But he was flexible.  Check.

I ran down to the stables to discover that they had only just started riding.  Wasn’t going to give them anytime at all and I couldn’t leave while they were on those big, tall, dangerous beasts.  But there was coverage – the other Mom was staying and wanted to take #2 for food afterward.  That worked.

Back to the house with marching orders – if we left in 2 minutes we’d make it.

We actually left on time.  Dropped of #1 and his friend.  Had great conversation back toward home.  I pulled into the theater parking lot.  “Where are we going Dad?” – “Thought you might want to watch Percy Jackson tonight.”  - “Really?” – “Yep.” – “COOL.” (beat) “Can we go home and get my glasses?”

Brakes.  U-turn.  Suddenly nothing was going right – long traffic delays, backup at the gate, and the time running out.

But we made it.  Even got to see some previews (trailers).

There was the sequel to “Rio”, the sequel to “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs”, the sequel to “The Hobbit”, the remake of “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”, and one original story – “Frozen”.  That’s right, just one.  I’ve been hearing a bit about the fear of going with original but that was crazy.  Just one original story in over 10 minutes of commercials.

Of course I can’t complain – we were the prime demographic to sell “more of the same” to since the film we’d paid to see, “Sea of Monsters”, was… a sequel.

We did have a good time, the movie was alright – about what I expected – but we’d read the book together and driving home there was quite a discussion about what was included, what was changed, and what was completely missing but should have been there – hello! Percy never changed into a hamster in the movie!  Whoops, spoiler alert.

The business is the business, but it’s there because some Friday nights, a Dad has to take his boys to see something fun. 

Rick Castle making fun of "Firefly"

The "Greatest American Hero" was a teacher.

I used to watch "The Greatest American Hero" when I was a kid.  I had very fond memories.  A couple of years ago (after finding "Sledgehammer") I queued it up on Netflix.  It came.  Memories were shattered.  If only it was as good as campy.  It was so bad my children wouldn't even watch it.  No matter, I still have [some of] my memories.

One of things I remember is Robert Culp as the FBI agent.  He was cool.  Since I couldn't fly (not just because the instruction book was lost) I would often either be him when we all were playing, or I would be working with him or out to rescue him when it was just me and my over-developed imagination.  Whichever way it went, being an FBI agent was where it was at.  If you had told me

 then that I would feel the way I do today about having to go to a meeting in the J. Edgar Hoover building, I'd have laughed at you.  Until you told me how early I would have to get up to catch the series of trains that would get me there on time for it.  I suspect that if it was scheduled for two hours later I'd have a completely attitude.  Then again, maybe not.  Getting through security is always a pain in the neck.

Of course this "Must See TV Thursday" isn't about "The Greatest American Hero".  Nope, it's about "Castle".  Sorry, you are probably sick of it but I saw the niftiest trick last night in the episode titled "A Rose for Everafter".  It was a total character piece; Richard meets up with "the one who got away" because one of her bridesmaids is murdered just before the wedding.  There is still a lot of chemistry so the bulk of the show is about why he is so shallow most of the time now - the depth of feeling he is capable of and the reason why he doesn't bother with it.

The perspective changes a bit, but I really felt that the perspective of the narrative was primarily that of Kate Beckett - the plot drive was her discovering him and her feelings for him through this woman that comes out of nowhere and shakes up her world.  The scenes with Beckett and the Bride are very well done.  Kate is clearly learning about herself and trying desperately to control her emotions.

The episode was written very well - there's a rule in TV that goes something like, "Keep Mulder and Scully apart for as long as possible".  This tale brought Castle and Beckett so close together that it was clear to anyone watching she is falling for him in a big way BUT the writers still managed to keep them apart.  That's not the trick though.

The trick was how they closed up the mystery.  Since the bulk of the episode was about love, not murder, there wasn't much time spent on the case itself.  We got clues but they were ambiguous and mostly about whom the victim was.  When it came time for the big reveal, you had no chance to get it - just luck - so they introduced the last bit with Detective Ryan announcing, "I've got the surveillance tape and you are never going to guess who it is."

That clear, that on-the-nose.  "You'll never guess."  I'm about to give you a big, unsatisfying reveal that essentially ties up all of the loose ends with coincidence (huge no-no) and I'm drawing attention to that fact.  Yet it worked.  Exceedingly well.  Totally believable.  The line was delivered in the right way by the right character and although it was a bit Scooby-Dooish, the explanation of the crime was reasonable and fit the clues of the story.  You could say they got away with it DESPITE the meddling kids and their mangy dog.

It isn't the sort of thing you can get away with every week, but here it worked.  I think it's part of the other rule of all fiction writing - "You get one gimmie".  You can have one totally far-fetched, impossible, no-way thing in your story.  As long as you execute it well.  In this episode, running into the ex-girlfriend at her high-society wedding was completely believable - no coincidence involved - and just to make sure, we get bonus dialogue with Rick and the bride's mother (after her character has already been established) showing how she and Castle feel about each other.

I'm a little worried about where this is going though - with so many seasons ahead, there’s the hint that this will turn into a "Hart to Hart" and that will completely change the show's [very high performance] engine.

"...A web would indicate an arachnoid presence."

I haven't watched much TV since getting back from vacation.  Between the day job and those insane kettlebells, when I reach that point in the day were I would normally sit on the couch and watch something, I'm already mostly asleep on my feet.  But never fear, I did watch TV while on vacation and had a wonderful trip down memory lane with Pat Sajak, Vanna White, and Alex Trebek.

This Must See TV Thursday is about the Wheel.  I was torn between the two shows but last night I watched an episode of Castle in which Julian Sands played the garish fashion designer and since he was in Arachnophobia and the first victims in the USA in Arachnophobia were watching Wheel, I figured that was the better bet - even though everyone in that movie -except John Goodman - was in jeopardy.  Jeopardy of losing their careers.  Apparently I was the only one in America that liked Arachnophobia, but more on that (and my 5 trips to the theater to see it) another day.

I first started watching “The Wheel of Fortune” when I was in 5th grade because my 5th grade teacher watched it and talked about it.  That was also when I started watching “General

Hospital” (for the same reason) - for reference, it was when Frisco and Felicia were getting together and Robert Scorpio was the man with the plan.

WOF hasn't changed much in thirty years.  In the old days there was a shopping spree with your prize money of sponsored items.  Now it appears you keep the cash with a chance to win some cherry prizes like trips and cars.  There are also more puzzles.  I think that's good, makes the game go much faster.  I don't know why most people watch game shows but for me it isn't about getting to know the contestants, it's about the game.  Except for the clothes – everything else looks pretty much the same.

There is one change I don't get.  For the final puzzle they give you letters and then let you select a couple of more.  I realize that everyone used to always pick the same ones, but somehow that doesn't sit well with me.  “They” are picking the puzzle that's worth the biggest prize and doing it already knowing what letters (mostly) you'll have.

Actually there's a lot about Wheel of Fortune that I don't get.  It's fun to watch but I'm not very good at it.  I don't have the app, the board game, or the lunchbox.  If you do, that's cool.  If you make a big bowl of popcorn to sit and watch it every night you won't get any grief from me.  Just, you might want to watch Arachnophobia to see what happens to those people...

"Have fun storming the castle."

Today on Must See TV - How 4th grade reading class prepared me for writing this blog.  Say what?  We'll get there.  I didn't try any new shows this week but I have upgraded my assessment of Castle.  The first season was good.  I have no problem recommending it.

But Jon, what does 4th grade have to do with this?  I'm getting to that.  Chill, man.  First let me share a great tip I just learned for recognizing passive and active usage.  That's important because when you are writing a screenplay you are supposed to use active voice.  The simple test, concocted by someone else's 4th grade teacher, is that if you are able to add "by zombies" at the end of the sentence and it still makes sense, you are using passive voice.  It goes something like this:

The chips were eaten by zombies  - passive

They ate the chips by zombies - active

Sure, some of you will think that any sentence with a zombie in it doesn't make sense and others will think that any sentence with a zombie must make sense, but for most of us, this works well.  And just because this is Must See TV Thursday, don't assume that when I wrote chips up there I was talking about Erik Estrada or Larry Wilcox.

Now back to my 4th grade story (by zombies).  Every page in our 4th grade reading workbook had at least one "compare and contrast" question.  Today I will compare and contrast the relationships between the single fathers in "Lie to Me" and "Castle" with their daughters and how those relationships impact the show.

Just to be upfront, I think the writing is much better for the relationship between Richard Castle and his daughter Alexis; she is a more believable character than Emily who is inconsistent in her behavior and interaction with Cal Lightman between episodes.

What's the same?  Both men are single fathers of teenage daughters living comfortably in a major U.S. city fighting crime without actually being a law enforcement officer and have strong emotional ties to a female coworker - there is also an ex-wife that can show up at any minute.  The daughters are set-up to be independent, smart, and confident; often telling their fathers about the way things should be and providing advice for interacting with the world socially - outside of the crime fighting milieu.

The differences, of course, are what set the shows apart.  The relationship is used by both shows for character development of the main protagonist but while LTM uses it to show how inept and self-centered Cal is, Castle uses the relationship to show there is a tender, nurturing side to the playboy image on the outside of Richard.  Of course we see Cal trying hard to be a good father and Richard constantly throws himself into harm's way with little regard for his daughter, but the engines of the shows revolve around these portrayals.

In LTM, the relationship is superficial to the plot in all but a few exceptions where the plot is specifically about Emily.  You could remove all references to the daughter and still have the main story intact.  No interaction at all between the A and B stories.  Castle, on the other hand, makes a father/daughter chat (usually around minute 23) a key aspect to solving the mystery in every episode.  Often it showcases that the cops, with all of the training, miss something important because they don't have families.  Forget the feel good part of showing a healthy relationship for a moment (this isn't a blog about family issues) and think about the writing - that's really good.  It ties everything together - you have scenes that are fun, develop the characters, and advance the story.  You can't take them out because then the crime isn't solved.  It isn't always handled neatly, but structurally it is very sound.

The final contrast I’ll point out here, is in the consistency of the characters.  In LTM, Emily is introduced as strong and independent, yet repeatedly she is shown as the victim or comes crying home to a Daddy that she spends every other episode disregarding.  She goes from fighter to victim without being knocked unconscious and that just doesn't jive.  The evil of the world has not invaded the Castle apartment in any of the episodes I've seen yet so I can't comment on Alexis under pressure, but she has real conversations with her father about things other than boys and parties - I believe a Castle movie would pass the Bechdel Test.  Neither my wife nor I have stopped and said, "That doesn't fit" in a scene between Richard and Alexis.

While it may seem clear that I prefer Castle to LTM, that's not quite true.  I believe that the relationship between the main protagonist and his daughter is better written and utilized in Castle, certainly, but that is just one part of the engine that drives the show.  LTM has a lot going for it, including pretty good writing for the A story - most of the time.  It's also a little less predictable than Castle, I mean, how long does it take to get there?  S/he's wearing a shirt that says, "I did it.  I'm the killer."

What are you watching?  I'm always interested in new leads, as good as the Magnum re-runs are, and, since I didn't make the cut for the Quest Initiative, I've got some time...